"Writing is a skill, not a talent, and thus one's ability as a writer can be improved by thoughtful effort. The problem with some people is that they graduate college as good writers, experience early success on account of that, and thus never devote themselves diligently to the relentless quest for improvement that could make them great writers."

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Late Sunday, I was searching for a blog post that Jennifer Rubin wrote at Commentary about the Van Jones resignation. I had seen it at Ed Driscoll's blog and quoted it early Sunday morning. Then one of the commenters noted that the link had gone dead. Apparently -- for reasons unknown -- the Rubin post had been deleted.

Maybe I’m too touchy about this, but I’m profoundly disturbed by the idea of relocating intellectuals, especially Jewish intellectuals, so they can learn about real values. Isn’t that exactly what Stalin and Mao did? Is there any Maoist/Stalinist/Leninist idea that the American right hasn’t embraced.

This is the most perverse possible reading of my post, which had observed merely that:

Modern liberalism is predominantly an urban phenomenon;

American Jews are more likely to reside in urban areas; and

Therefore, if conservative Jews wish to ameliorate the prevalence of liberalism among Jews, they should think about ways to encourage more Jews to live in small towns in the Heartland.

The simplest way to define conservatism is this: The belief that liberalism is wrong.

The great truths are simple truths. And the great errors are liberal errors. Speaking of liberals and errors, via Memeorandum, I find that the Balloon Juice thread is linked with a Newshoggers post about Max Blumenthal's new book, quoting this from a BuzzFlash review:

"Inspired by the work of psychologist Erich Fromm, who analyzed how the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, Blumenthal explains in a compelling narrative how a culture of personal crisis has defined the radical right."

'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. . . .[Frankfurt School theorists sought a] 'revolution' [that] would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America . . .The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others.

Thus the discredited Marxist theories of the past are made the ideological template through which 21st-century "progressives" misunderstand the present. From atop my desk, I retrieve my yellowed and tattered old paperback edition of William F. Buckley Jr.'s Up From Liberalism (1961), from pages 78-79 of which I quote, in reference to the Frankfurt School's grandest project:

[O]ne needs no advanced degrees in clinical psychology and psychoanalytical theory in order to penetrate the fallacy of The Authoritarian Personality. Its thesis is very simply this: American conservatives (primarily members of the lower middle class) are the way they are politically because of marked tendencies to authoritarianism. The authors of the project began with the assumption that anyone who is opposed to the welfare state is likely to be "unenlightened" in his attitudes . . . These postulates are fed into a mill . . . to produce the stereotype: "the authoritarian personality."

Which is to say that Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse, et al., were recognized as transparent frauds 50 years ago, and yet we find that Fromm's smug little theory is made the inspirational basis for a "compelling narrative" -- compelling to whom? liberals, of course -- in 2009!

Remarkable, really, how the Left's erroneous presumptions haven't changed at all: If the social welfare state is synonymous with enlightenment, opponents of the welfare state must therefore be unenlightened. The only question remaining for the liberal theorist is to identify the variety of psychopathology that explains this (presumably irrational) opposition.

So it is that Max Blumenthal, who no doubt favors putting the federal government in control of America's health-care system, effectively nationalizing 1/7th of the economy, presumes to diagnose opponents of such policies as suffering from "the fear of freedom."

Well, two can play the armchair psychoanalyst game, and I hereby diagnose Max as suffering from diminished self-awareness and an underdeveloped appreciation for irony.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. When you point out how idiotically circular are the "intellectual" arguments that beguile liberals, their response is the same as it was a half-century ago. The finger is pointed at you and the furious shrieking is heard: "Fascist!"

"The simplest way to define conservatism is this: The belief that liberalism is wrong."

And that, my friend, is why conservatism failed so badly in the last election. You have to offer people more than that. You have to explain, not just why the other guy is bad, but why you're better. And you're contiuing the conservative tradition of failure to do that.

Hey lib, I am assuming you're watching how Nancy and Harry and Barney are calling people names, and Barry calling people names with the help of the entire visual media.

So, when Barry promised the moon, lyingly, and is now paying the price for being a bullshit artist, and had his media and congress attack US citizens for expressing their minds, what do you have to say about that?

It never fails that liberals are so fucking un-selfaware. I see it all the time. You cannot see what it is you are.

You have a very simplistic view of what creates political affiliation if you think moving Jews (or anyone else) to the country would have any appreciable effect. That is, it the cat has kittens in the oven, they're not biscuits.

(In any case are the 40%+ Democratic voters in Red stated not really rural or American?)

'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. When you point out how idiotically circular are the "intellectual" arguments that beguile liberals, their response is the same as it was a half-century ago. The finger is pointed at you and the furious shrieking is heard: "Fascist!"'

Beautifully put. Elegant, simple, plenary.

I am sure you see it, but I will mention it nonetheless: this turning facts and truth on its head by "liberals" (I prefer "bolshevik communists") and now also purge-ist "conservatives" (I prefer "fabian communists") is intended to co-opt terminology that elicits more respect than terminology the cop-opters represent.

The history of their term co-opting suggests that the actual communist agenda has been in spate for a century and more.

In the late 19th Century and early 20th, "liberal" meant "humanist" and its banner was carried by industrialists and merchants such as induced the young Kaiser Bill to eschew von Bismarck and march against France, which brought in England. Its theological father was Ritschl.

"Communist" then meant communist in the classical sense of eliminating private property for the "greater good" -- living in commune.

"Liberal" was more acceptable in society generally since private property is not considered an alienable reality by its holders, including communists such as Drummond Pike.

So communists co-opted the term liberal for themselves. This gave rise to the distinction between Fabians ("liberal" communists, a/k/a humanists in academe, the "polite" communists FDR brought from Harvard to D.C. and who have run the place ever since, but never so thoroughly as they wished) and Bolsheviks ("extremist" communists, the street-fighters, demonstrators, extortioners, vanguard of the revolution, who were actually well-controlled by the "polite" communists in academe and government).

Now that "conservative" is seen as more acceptable to society generally, polite communists are moving to co-opt it for themselves. To do this they must shift the taxonomy to the left. Extremist communists (bolsheviks) become liberals and polite communists (fabians) become conservatives.

It's a neat trick that has worked before and has much to commend it to nefarious minds. I am sure it has not escaped your attention.

Both varieties of tyranny, fascism and communism, must fly under false flags to gain the upper hand on citizens. The mission of the Frankfurt School was to create and manufacture whatever succession of such flags would be required by circumstances, which remain dynamic. One day communism is this, the next it is that. Its constants are its nature and its MO.

If your contention is that Cities == liberalism, why not attack the source, and "somehow" "encourage" everyone to live in the boonies?

Ah, but since those big evil cities seem to be required for good ole' country independence (red states being net monetary sinks, fed by blue states), maybe it would be better to make it more like temporary camps. You know, for re-education.

I kind of think you need to rethink the whole "red states are monetary sinks" thing, there Mr. Anonymous. Texas is a red state. If we were to secede today, our economy would instantly get a massive kick in the pants because all our taxes would stay here. We are a so-called 'donor' state. That means we pay more in taxes to the federal government than we get back in benefits. There are states that get back more than they pay. Those states tend to have large populations of underpaid workers and huge city infrastructures to support. Allow red states to keep stop supporting the two left coasts and you'll see an unprecedented economic boom! Let us control our own resources, our own farming and manufacturing policies and we'll do nicely thank you. Monetary sink, indeed!

What Mr King above forgot to mention is that Texas gets $0.97 of federal money for every dollar in federal taxes paid...good enough for 30th in the nation. Dead last among "donor states".

Not exactly a vital link in the nation's financial chain. Those left coast states that Texas is "supporting"? Yeah, not so much...they include states like Califrnia ($0.92), New Jersey ($0.39), Pennsylvania ($0.59), Oregon ($0.35), Massachusets ($0.77) and New York ($0.24). As it turns out, 21 blue states are bigger donor states than Texas.

We would survive just fine without Texas. But considering that due to rapid demographic changes Texas will be a blue state by 2016, I doubt there's much chance of them leaving anyway.

I’m still trying to figure out how those of us who oppose a welfare state are geared towards authoritarian systems. Last time I checked welfare meant that the government decided based on “calculated need” who is allowed to receive money, how much they are allowed to have and where/what they are allowed to spend it on. If that’s not an example of an authoritarian system then the WTF qualifies? I would love to see them explain the healthcare debacle. Why is it that so many liberals refuse to acknowledge that history has proven that MANY of their ideas flat out don’t work? It’s really not hard.

And I know the rebuttal- market forces aren’t proven not to work either. I mean look at how many people can’t afford (insert “right” here). Well that in itself is another flat out lie. No sane person expects the market to give a 100% equal result. What is does accomplish is allow the greatest amount of people to have access to the greatest amount of goods and services at the lowest possible price. I can buy a car, just not a mustang. I can rent, just not pay a mortgage. What would happen if Chinese labor suddenly wasn’t so cheap? How many poor people in America would no longer be able to buy a cell phone? I feel like many people need to get their heads of the butts, forget their Utopian vision of the world and focus on reality. Heck, before the Great Depression, unemployment was at 3%. Under GW unemployment was at 4-4.5%. That is low and reasonable for a society and economy as complex as ours. You can’t fix everyone’s problems.

And as far as this whole monetary sink/donor state business- it ultimately doesn’t matter. So what that CA (and the rest) receives less in the way of federal funds? What ultimately matters is how a state is managed. The big blue donors, with exception of PA, are terribly managed. They’re in the hole. Even if they did get the bulk of their money back, I still doubt it will get them out of the hole. And the reality is, if TX left the union vs NY, that would be a big kick in the pants. Why? It’s like a company letting go a profitable division vs one that is not profitable. Example: one division contributes positively to the company’s baseline, but is dragging their profit margin down with debt, while the other division contributes a close net of $0 to the baseline and is also pulling in a profit. NY may contribute 0.76 to the company, but they are also spending $1.50. TX contributes $0.03 and pulls a profit of $1.00. Which would you get rid of? Which would have an immediate POSITIVE impact on the company, or in this case the economy? Why, getting rid of NY of course. (Hehehe: I wouldn’t be surprised if our debt dropped 10% if NY disappeared.)

" Why, getting rid of NY of course. (Hehehe: I wouldn’t be surprised if our debt dropped 10% if NY disappeared.)"I...think this is what Bin Laden had in mind.Seriously, relocating Jews to rural America, giggling like a little girl at the thought of NYC disappearing.... is there in no end to the Talibanism of the Right?I'm beginning to think that Stacy's relocation faux pas is not the slip of the tongue it seems to be, as he was quite fleet of finger in changing the topic. Then again, he's a big Ann Coulter supporter. If Ann Coulter believes in Jewish redemption via conversion, then is Stacy far off?Who knows? Afterall, he defines Conservatism as "Liberalism is wrong".If you need to define yourself by what someone else is not, then you end up no better than Rev Dr. E Buzz up there who seems to spend most of his time overcompensating for his tiny manhood with over-simplistic proclamations...

Young 4-Eyes wrote: "I'm beginning to think that Stacy's relocation faux pas is not the slip of the tongue it seems to be . . ."

It was neither a faux pas nor a "slip of the tongue," Y4E, and I did not advocate "relocation" -- i.e., some sort of programmatic coercion -- as your idiot liberal friends continue to insinuate. How about let's talk about what I actually wrote, rather than your own paranoid fantasies, eh?

I am damned tired of these Humpty-Dumpty games, where words mean whatever liberals want them to mean. What I wrote, after extensively offering anecdotal examples of differences in politically significant cultural attitudes fostered by differences between urban and rural lifestyles, was this:

If Messrs. Podhorhetz, et al., wish to promote conservatism among American Jews, let them find some way to encourage Jewish families to move to small towns in the Heartland . . .

Not even the remotest suggestion of coercion, nor even anything approaching a "program" or "policy." Rather, I suggested that Podhoretz et al., "encourage" a greater American disapora, as it were, away from the centers of urban liberalism and out into the Red State regions of our nation.

In an earlier age, when liberalism owed something more to the etymological roots of that designation, a liberal might have been said that I encouraged Podhoretz et al. to promote a greater assimilation. Today it seems, it is considered more enlightened to advocate the confining of Jews to an urban American shtetl of progressivism.

You will excuse me for failing to be impressed by liberal assumptions of moral superiority, deeming yourself fit to lecture others about "over-simplistic proclamations," when you so blithely and dishonestly distort the arguments of others.

This gem:"I am damned tired of these Humpty-Dumpty games, where words mean whatever liberals want them to mean."Is followed by this gem:"Today it seems, it is considered more enlightened to advocate the confining of Jews to an urban American shtetl of progressivism."Seems like Humpty -Dumpty just fell off of the wall. Better the games where words mean what Conservatives want them to mean,eh? I am shocked--shocked!-- this kind of hypocrisy is taking place on a Conservative blog....

I've noticed that there is this knee jerk reaction on the Right that leads to accusations of "moral superiority"(as if such a thing existed) that certainly is born of an innate inferiority complex.Do I really deem myself "fit to lecture", or am I simply exercising my right to speak my mind? Or is this right only recognized if I'm carrying a pitchfork at a town-hall meeting?Did I distort your argument, or was I simply playing the game according to your rules( or to the Conservatives' rules).And it is a game afterall.The question remains, why have you not condemned Ann Coulters' statement about Jews conversion to Christianity?I'm sorry, I'm still in game mode.Like my friend Rimbaud once said--This means nothing.Apres moi, le deluge....

So, in response to criticism of your calling for rural relocation and re-education for urban Jews, you post a "question" asking: are "liberal" and "idiot" synonymous?

Gosh that will show them. That response will easily prove that you were simply "misinterpreted" in your first insane post, since it's so serious, adult, and not at all adolescent and silly.

One of the hallmarks of making statements that are hideous racial screeds is that you don't even know you did it. That is, not seeing how remarkably totalitarian and anti-semetic your post was isn't a defense against the fact that it was.

I’m still trying to figure out how those of us who oppose a welfare state are geared towards authoritarian systems.

The "you" in question being Republicans, I'm guessing?

I'm thinking the stereotype of your guys being all authoritarians comes from all the "Either you're with us, or you're with THE TERRORISTS" and "Dissent is TREASON" folderol us filthy peaceniks had to endure after 9/11. Plus that whole "Torture is GOOD" thing was a bit off-putting, too. And the unlimited surveillance rights you guys tripped over yourself to lay at Bush's feet. And so on.

"I would love to see them explain the healthcare debacle. Why is it that so many liberals refuse to acknowledge that history has proven that MANY of their ideas flat out don’t work? It’s really not hard."

Oh! I know this one! It's because every other G-8 country has proper national health-care and it works REALLY WELL compared to out corporate morass. I've talked to a lot of Otherplacians, and their usual reaction to our system varies between bafflement that we put up with it to stunned horror at the thought of dealing with it.

Hit the tip jar, you ungrateful bastards!

Understand Liberalism

"When R.S. McCain talks about gonzo journalism, he knows what he’s talking about."-- Chapomatic"You are reading Robert every day, aren’t you? If you aren’t, you’re missing out, folks. The guy brings the good stuff every day."-- Jimmie, The Sundries Shack

". . . the one-of-a-kind Robert Stacy McCain, whose blog should be on your must-read list, if it isn't already."-- Dyspeptic Mutterings

"The most enthusiastic blogger I have yet to meet."-- Pam Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The guy has to be the hardest working dude in DC. I've yet to meet someone here he doesn't know."-- Dan Riehl, Riehl World View

"One of the most important conservative writers working today."--Donald Douglas"For what it's worth, the man can also hold his liquor better than most; that's probably how he gets his scoops."-- Little Miss Atilla